Hello
since this is a MB concerned with BOOKS and because of it LIBRARIANS here have a place of HONOUR and are MOST welcome I will commnent the not-royalty connected book "Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper" by Nicholson Baker.
I didn't read the book, I am just reading its review by famous historian Robert Darnton on "The New York Review of Books", and as a matter of fact I didn't read all the review yet as I thought the accusaations against librarians so EXPLOSIVE I wanted to ask questions to the royalty interested librarians of this Message Board.
First I would like to say I find the profession of Librarian the most charming, in my opinion. I admire more doctors and nurses but I like much more librarians, I always get along well personally with librarians all over the world.
Nicholson Baker says libraries and librarians have destroyed millions and millions of primary sources: the newspapers. Against old beliefs we had to learn in History Course on University (classes given by professors from the Library School) the old paper created with chemicals after 1870 is DOING VERY WELL till today and there's no reason to believe it will be otherwise in the next 2 or 3 centuries. Institutions like Yale and Chicago Universities and the famous Library of Congress destroyed newspapers saying they would not resist time, and libraries need space. They have replaced newspapers with microfilm, which is far from the ideal solution as microfilm is LESS resistant to time than old cheap paper, and worse still: MUCH has not been put into microfilm and in the process SOURCES for History has been tragically lost for ever! Librarians, like Patricia Battin who "led the attack on paper" according to Baker, say sets of microfilms are complete if they lack 6 percent of tehir issues. Not to mention Baker says mcrofilms are very expenisve. Until this point Darnton agrees with Baker, but then Darnton criticizes Baker for accusing Librarians of turning their obsession with space into an "ideology". Librarians have "demonized the paper" "They hate the stuff and want to get rid of it at all costs", here Darnton thinks Baker goes beyond believability.
I stopped reading the article on this point; but I see Darnton and Baker say preservation does not mean destruction, the destruction was unnecessary, the destruction was brutal, etc. And Baker says now there's a great danger Librarians will destroy BOOKS as well, always in the name of space. Well, what is your opinion??
Alberto
It is certainly wonderful to be appreciated, Alberto! But in partial answer to your question, a little background . . . Nicholson Baker has also gone ballistic over the replacement of card catalogs (which are HORRIBLY labor-intensive, thus expensive, and not as flexible as computer-based systems), so he has his own set of perceptions on libraries. Marlene has obvious lots ofexperience with newspaper and other news libraries, and has better addressed the many preservation formats available today, which for the most part are better options. I will also add that libraries, be they university, public, or even private, are not well-funded and all sorts of painful decisions regarding staffing, space, and service priorities have to be made. There are of course different decisions at different libraries - for instance, a public library system or small college doesn't have the preservation issues or responsibilities of, say, Harvard University or the Library of Congress. I throw away book all of the time - but it's because they are outdated (in an information sense, say a book on current treatment of cancer from 1992 . . .) or simply falling apart. And most libraries are not archival. BUT THE BOOK, NEW OR OLD, IS NOT DEAD!!!!!
When a librarian is actually elected president (instead of the spouse of one, be he a self-proclaimed "education president" or not) . . well . . . more attention needs to be paid to libraries, and there is much work to be done.
Sarah
And speaking of books, you must read ALL OF THE TIME, Alberto! I am amazed at what you manage to get read. Personally, I think we should all have an eighth day of the week just for reading.
Sarah
: Sarah, please hand me a paper towel - the comment on card catalogs made me spill my tea. Blessed are they who nuked card catalogs. Electronic cataloging is a gift from God
Makes life so much easier - you can sit in your nightie and look at library catalogs.
You are absolutely right about costs, etc., but the problems of funding (or rather lack of funding) start at local levels. A very good friend of mine is the director of a library in upstate NY, and she is in the process of weeding collections - and having to deal every year with budgets and how much money she won't be getting.
I remember when I turned my home card catalog into electronic = retyping everything. But I wish I had a program for cataloging by subject
Marlene
Right
I should have readen till the end....the author Nicholson Baker is a bit weird, he even puts CIA in the book...
Ang I quote Robert Darnton:
"Space is a serious problem for librarians, not one that they attempt to conjure away by "demonization" or by giving free rein to some psychic loathing of paper. Paper can be fragile. Books are often damaged. Microfilming does preserve at least some of the historical record"
But Darnton agrees with some of Baker's recommendations, one of them is public libraires should publish monthly lists of discards...
It's a shame funds to libraries are so small, I wonder if the ellectorate really wants libraries being treated this way! I don't think so
Alberto
Some libraries have started to sell certain withdrawn titles (I guess the proper word is "deaccessioned") online - ebay and such - but that is also very labor-intensive.
Sarah
The Libraries here in Australia tend to sell there "old" books to the readers themselves. Very often do you enter a Library and there will be a table with books for sale on them, that's how I got my copy of Noel Gerard's Princess Alice for 50 cents, just a cover that was slightly torn.
Kevin (from Australia)
The library in the village where I live does the same thing. At least once a year they put up many very old books for sale. This accomplishes two things, clearing more space for new books and making some money for the library.
Betsy
Many libraries do publish what they discard - and books are discarded for all sorts of reasons including being out of date. Some books are destroyed, others get sent to the book drives .... some books ends up in Third World countries.
If the electorate cared, they would vote for local officials who would spend more money - but here in the USA, we dont like spending a lot of money - lower taxes, less government spending.
Marlene
Alberto,
I am a professional librarian (Master of Library Science, State University of NY at Albany, 1981)It is rather expensive to store newspapers. Also difficult to use without an index to match. Microfilm was the answer because it was for many years the only other way to save a newspaper. The NYTimes is complete as far as I know on microfilm. But microfilm has to kept at a certain temperature, and it is not difficult to make further copies. Newspapers don't even save their own papers anymore. I've been a news librarian for 20 or so years. It used to be microfilm; now it is electronic databases, digital, CD storage. The Library of Congress is involved in a major digitalization of its material.
There is no international librarian conspiracy here ...
nowhere do I see you mention - digital or CD scanning. newspapers themselves contract with firms to do their microfilming.
Old newspapers do deteriorate over time - and would be difficult to use - Microfilm allowed for thousands of people to access a newspaper - CD=ROM, digital, electronic databases allow even more.
Marlene